Reply to Criticism of Our Draft Programme

ComradeX[9]rejects the third and fourth points of the agrarian section of our draft
      and submits his own draft, in which all the points of the agrarian
      programme, as well as the preamble to it, are revised. We shall first
      examine Comrade X’s objections to our draft, and then his own draft.

Againstthe third point, Comrade X advances the objection that the
      confiscation of the monasterial (and we would willingly add: church)
      estates and the royal demesnes as proposed by us would mean that the
      capitalists would grab the lands for next to nothing. It would be
      precisely those who plunder the peasants, he says, who would buy up these
      lands on the money they had plundered. To this we must remark that, in
      speaking about the sale of the confiscated estates, Comrade X draws an
      arbitrary conclusion that our programme does not contain. Confiscation
      means alienation of property without compensation. It is only of such
      alienation that our draft speaks. Our draft programme says nothing as to
      whether these lands are to be sold, and if so to whom and how, in what
      manner and on what terms. We are not binding ourselves, but reserve
      judgement as to the most expedient form in which to dispose of the
      confiscated properties when they are confiscated, when all the social and
      political conditions of such confiscation are clear. In this respect
      Comrade X’s draft differs from our draft in demanding, not only
      confiscation, but the transference of the confiscated lands “to the
      democratic state for their most advantageous utilisation by the
      population.” Thus, Comrade X excludes one of the forms of the disposal of
      what has been confiscated (sale) and does not suggest any definite form
      (since it remains unclear just what constitutes orwill constitute or should constitute the “most advantageous”
      utilisation, and just what classes of the “population” will
      receive the right to this utilisation and on what terms). Hence, Comrade X
      fails in any case to bring complete definiteness into the question of how
      the confiscated lands should be disposed of (nor can this be determined in
      advance), while he wrongly excludes their sale as one of the methods. It
      would be wrong to say that, under all circumstances and at all times, the
      Social-Democrats will be opposed to the sale of the land. In a
      police-controlled class state, even if it is a constitutional state, the
      class of property-owners may not infrequently be a far stauncher pillar of
      democracy than the class of tenant farmers dependent on that state. That
      is on the one hand. On the other hand, our draft makes for greater
      provision than Comrade X’s draft does against confiscated lands being
      turned into “gift& to the capitalists” (insofar as any
      provision against this can be spoken of in general in the wording of a
      programme). And indeed, let us imagine the worst: let us imagine that,
      despite all its efforts, the workers’ party will be unable to curb the
      capitalists’ wilfulness and

      greed.[1]In that, case, Comrade X’s formulation affords free scope for the
      “most advantageous” utilisation of the confiscated lands, by
      the capitalist class of the “population.” On the contrary, our
      formulation, while it does not link up the basic demand with the form of
      its realisation, nevertheless envisages a strictly definite application of
      sums received from such realisation. When Comrade X says that “the
      Social-Democratic Party cannot undertake in advance to decide in what
      concrete form the popular representative body will utilise the land which
      it will have at its command,” he is confusing two different things: themethodof realising (in other words: “the form of
      utilising”) this land and theapplicationof the sums received
      from this realisation. By leaving the question of the application of these
      sums absolutely indefinite and tying his hands, even in part, in the
      question of the method of realisation, Comrade X introduces a double
      impairment into our draft.

Inour opinion, Comrade X is just as wrong when he presents the following
      objection to us: “It is likewise impossibleto recover land redemption payments from the nobles, since many of them
      have squandered them all.” As a matter of fact, this is no objection at
      all, since we do not even propose that these sums should simply be
      “recovered,” but propose a special tax. In his article Comrade X
      himself cites facts showing that the big landowners “cut off”
      a particularly large share of the peasants’ land for themselves, in some
      cases seizing as much asthree-quartersof the land. Hence the
      demand for a special tax on the big landed nobility in particular is quite
      natural. It is likewise quite natural to designate funds thus obtained for
      the special use we demand, forin additionto the general task of
      returning to the people all revenues received by the state (a task which
      can be fully accomplished only under socialism), liberated Russia will
      Inescapably be faced with the special and most pressing task of raising
      the peasants’ standard of living, rendering serious aid to the
      poverty-stricken and hungry masses, whose ranks are swelling so extremely
      rapidly under our autocratic system.

Letus pass to the fourth point, which Comrade X rejects in full, although
      he analyses only the first part of this point—about the cut-off
      lands—without any mention of the second part, envisaging eradication
      of the remnants of serfdom, which vary in different parts of the
      country. We shall begin with a formal remark by the author: he sees a
      contradiction in the fact that we demand abolition of the social-estates
      and the establishment of peasant, i.e., social-estate, committees. In
      fact, the contradiction is only a seeming one: the abolition of the
      social-estates requires a “dictatorship” of the lowest,
      oppressed social-estate, just as the abolition of classes in general,
      including the class of proletarians, requires the dictatorship of the
      proletariat. The object of our entire agrarian programme is the
      eradication of feudal and social-estate traditions in the sphere of
      agrarian relations, and to bring that about the only possible appeal can
      be to the lowest social-estate, to those who are oppressed by these
      remnants of the serf-owning system.

The-author’sprincipal objection boils down.to the following: “it is
      hardly provable” that the cut-off lands are the principal basis of
      the labour-rent system, since the size ofthese cut-off lands depended on whether the serf peasants were quit-rent
      peasants, and hence had much land, or corvée peasants, and hence
      had little land. “The size of the cut off lands and their importance
      depend on a combination of historical conditions”; for instance, the
      percentage of cut off lands is negligible on the small estates in Volsk
      Uyezd, while on the large estates it is enormous. This is how the author
      reasons, without noticing that he is getting away from the point. The
      cut-off lands were indubitably distributed most unevenly, depending on a
      combination of the most varied conditions (including a condition such as
      the existence of the corvée system or quit-rent under the
      serf-owning system). But what does that prove? Is not the labour-rent
      system also most unevenly distributed? Is not the existence of this system
      also determined by a combination of the most varied historical conditions?
      The author undertakes to disprove theconnectionbetween the
      cut-off lands and the labour-rent system, but talks only about the reasons
      for the cut-off lands and the differences in their size, without refer
      ring by as much as a single word to this connection. Only once does the
      author make an assertion which approaches immediately the substance of his
      thesis, and yet it is in this very assertion that he isabsolutely
      wrong.“Consequently,” he says, summing up his arguments about
      the influence of quit-rent or the corvée system, “where the
      peasants were corvée peasants (mainly in the central
      agricultural area), these cut-off lands will be negligible, whereas
      in those places where they were quit-rent peasants, all of the landlords’
      land may consist of ’cut-off lands.’" The words italicised by us contain a
      blunder which destroys the author’s whole line of argument. It is
      precisely in the central agricultural area, this main centre of the
      labour-rent system and all sorts of remnants of serfdom, that the cut-off
      lands are not “negligible” but enormous, much greater than in
      the non-black-earth zone, where quit-rent predominates over
      corvée. Here are data on this question, received from a comrade who
      is a professional statistician. He has compared data given in theMilitary-Statistical Abstracton the holdings of landlords’
      peasants prior to the Reform with the figures showing land holdings in
      1878, thus determining the size of the cut-off lands in each gubernia. It
      appeared that in nine guberniasof the non-black-earth

      zone[2]the landlords’ peasants held 1 0,421,000 dessiatines prior to the Reform,
      whereas only 9,746,000 dessiatines were left to them in 1878, i.e.,
      675,000 dessiatines, or 6.5 per cent of the land, were cut off, the
      average per gubernia being 72,800 dessiatines. On the other hand, in
      fourteen black-earth

      gubernias[3]the peasants held 12,795,000 dessiatines and were left with 9,996,000
      dessiatines, i.e., 2,799,000 dessiatines, or 21.9 per cent, were cut off,
      an average of 199,100 dessiatines per gubernia. The only exception was the
      third area, in the steppes, where in five

      gubernias[4]the peasants held 2,203,000 dessiatines and they were left with 1,580,000,
      i.e., 623,000, or 28.3 per cent, were cut off, the average per gubernia
      being 124,600

      dessiatines.[5]This area is an exception, since here the capitalist system predominates
      over the labour-rent system, while the percentage of cut-off lands is the
      highest here. But this exception only goes to prove the general rule, for
      here the influence of the cut-off lands has been paralysed by such
      important circumstances as the peasants possessing the largest allotments,
      despite the cut-off lands, and the greatest amount of free land available
      here for renting. Thus, the author’s attempt to cast doubt on the
      existence of a connection between the cut-off lands and the labour-rent
      system is quite unsuccessful.On the whole, there is no doubt
      that the centre of the labour-rent system in Russia (the central
      black-eartharea) Is at the same time the centre of the cut-off lands. We emphasise
      “on the whole” in reply to the following question put by the
      author. Against the words in our programme about restitution of land which
      has been cut off and is now used as a means of bondage, the author has put
      in brackets the following question: “but what about that which is
      not used as such?” Our reply to him is that the programme is not a
      legislative bill on the restitution of the cut-off lands. We define and
      explain the general significance of the cut-off lands, but do not speak of
      individual cases. Is it really still possible, after all the Narodnik
      literature on the position of the post-Reform peasantry, to have any
      doubts about the fact that on the whole the cut-off lands serve as a means
      of serf bondage? Is it really possible, we ask further, to deny the
      connection between the cut-off lands and the labour-rent system, when this
      connection follows from the most elementary concepts on the post-Reform
      economy of Russia? The labour-rent system is a combination of the
      corvée system and capitalism, of the “old regime” and
      “modern” economy, of the system of exploitation through land
      allotment and the system of exploitation through separation from the
      land. What could be a more glaring example of present-day corvée
      than a system of farming based on labour rendered in return for the use of
      cut-off lands (a system describedas such, as a special system,
      and not something incidental, in Narodnik literature in the good old days,
      when nobody had even heard of the hackneyed and narrow-minded Marxists)?
      Is it really possible to believe that today the peasant is tied down to
      the landonlybecause there is no law granting freedom of
      movement, and not because of the existence, in addition to that (and
      partly at the root 01 that), of bondage service for the use of the
      cut-off lands?

Afterfailing to prove in any way that there is any basis for his doubting
      the existence of a connection between the cut-off lands and bondage, the
      author continues his argument as follows: restitution of the cut-off lands
      is the allotting of small plots of land based not so much on the
      requirements of peasant farming as on historical “tradition.” Like
      any allotment of an insufficient quantity of land (there can be no
      question of an adequate allotment), it will not destroy bond age hut will
      rather create it, since it willcauserenting ofland that is lacking, renting because of need, subsistence tenancy, and
      will consequently be a reactionary measure.

Heretoo the argument misses the mark, for the agrarian section of our
      programme does not at all “promise” to do away with all want
      in general (this promise is given only in the general socialist section of
      the programme), but promises only to eradicate (at least in part) the
      remnants of the serf-owning system. Our programme refers, not to allotment
      of all sorts of small plots of land in general, but specifically to doing
      away with at least one of the already existing forms of bondage. The
      author has departed from the trend of thought underlying our programme,
      and arbitrarily and incorrectly attributed another meaning to it. Indeed,
      just examine his line of reasoning. He rejects (and in this respect, he is
      of course right) the interpretation of cut-off lands as implying just
      strips of land belonging to different owners, and says: “If the
      cut-off lands are to constitute additional allotment land, it is necessary
      to see whether there are enough cut-off lands to remove relationships
      entailing bond age, since from this standpoint bondage relationships are a
      result of land-hunger.” Absolutely nowhere in our programme is the
      assertion made that there are enough cut-off lands to do away with
      bondage. Only the socialist revolution can do away with all bondage,
      whereas in the agrarian programme we take our stand on the ground of
      bourgeois relationships and demand certain measures “with a view to
      eradicating” (we do not even say that this can be complete
      eradication) the remnants of the serf-owning system. The whole essence of
      our agrarian programme is that the rural proletariat must fight together
      with the rich peasantry for the abolition of the remnants of serfdom, for
      the cut-off lands. Anyone who examines this proposition closely will grasp
      the incorrectness, theirrelevanceand illogicality of an
      objection such as: whyonlythe cut-off lands, if that is not
      enough? Becausetogether with the rich peasantrythe proletariatwill be unableto go, andmust notgo, beyond the
      abolition of serfdom, beyond restitution of the cut-off lands,
      etc.Beyond that, the proletariat in general and the rural
      proletariat in particularwill march alone;not together with the
      “peasantry,” not together with the rich peasant, but againsthim.The reason we do not go beyond the demand for the cut-offlands is not because we do not wish the peasant well or because we are
      afraid of scaring the bourgeoisie, but be cause we do not want the rural
      proletarian to help the rich peasantmore than is necessary, more
      than is essential to the proletariat. Both the proletarian and the rich
      peasant suffer from serf bondage; againstthisbondage they can
      and should go together; but against theotherforms of bondage,
      the proletariat will go alone. Hence the distinction made in our programme
      between serf bondage and all other bondage necessarily follows from the
      strictobservance of the class interests of the proletariat.We
      would be running counter to these interests and would be abandoning the
      class standpoint of the proletariat, if we allowed our programme to state
      that the “peasantry” (i.e., the rich plus the poor) will go
      together beyond eradication of the remnants of serfdom; we would thereby
      beputting a brakeon this absolutely essential, and, from the
      standpoint of the Social-Democrat, the most important, process of the
      finalseparation of the rural proletariatfrom the land-holding
      peasantry, the process of the development of proletarian
      class-consciousness in the countryside. When the Narodniks, people of the
      old faith, and the Socialist-Revolutionaries, people without faith or
      convictions of any kind, shrug their shoulders at our agrarian programme,
      that is because they (for instance, Mr. Rudin and Co.) have no idea of the
      real economic system in our countryside and its evolution, have no idea of
      the bourgeois relations which have been developing and have almost taken
      shape within the village commune, or of the strength of the bourgeois
      peasantry. They approach our agrarian programme with the old Narodnik
      prejudices, or more frequently with fragments of these prejudices, and
      begin to criticise individual points or their wording, without even
      comprehending the aim of our agrarian programme or the social and economic
      relations it has in view. When they are told that our agrarian programme
      does not refer to the struggle against the bourgeois system, but to the
      evolution of bourgeois relations in the countryside, they merely rub their
      eyes in amazement, unaware (because of their characteristic indifference
      to theory) that their perplexity is simply an echo of the struggle between
      the Narodnik and the Marxist world outlook.

Tothe Marxist who undertakes to draft an agrarian programme, the question
      of the remnants of serfdom in the bourgeois and capitalistically
      developing Russian country side is one that has already been settled, and
      it is only owing to their utter lack of principle that the
      Socialist-Revolutionaries are unable to see that if they want to offer anymaterialcriticism they must contrapose to our solution of this
      question something that is at least coherent and integral. To the Marxist
      the problem is simply to avoid either of two extremes: on the one hand,
      not to fall into the error of those who say that, from the standpoint of
      the proletariat, we are in no way concerned with any immediate and
      temporary non-proletarian tasks, and on the other, not to allow the
      proletariat’s co-operation in the attainment of the immediate, democratic
      tasks to dim its class-consciousness and its class distinctiveness. In the
      sphere of agrarian relationships proper, this task reduces itself to the
      following: the bringing forward of a slogan of such an agrarian reform on
      the basis of the existing society as would most completely sweep away the
      remnants of serfdom and most rapidly single out the rural proletariat from
      the undifferentiated mass of the peasantry as a whole.

Webelieve that our programme has coped with this task. Moreover, we are
      not at all put out by Comrade X’s question: what should we do if the
      peasant committees demand not the cut-off lands but all the land? We
      ourselves demand all the land, only, of course, not “with a view to
      eradicating the remnants of the serf-owning system” (to which end
      the agrariansectionof our programme limits itself), but with a
      view to the socialist revolution. And it is precisely this goal that we
      are always and under all circumstances tirelessly pointing out to the
      “rural poor.”  There is no grosser error than to think that the
      Social-Democrat can go to the villages only with the agrarian section of
      his programme, that he can even for a moment furl his socialist banner. If
      the demand for all the land is a demand for the nationalisation of the
      land or its transference to the land-holding peasants of today, we shall
      appraise this demand from the standpoint of the proletariat’s interests,
      taking all factors into consideration: we cannot, for instance, say in
      advance whether, when the revolution awakens them to political life, our
      land-holdingpeasants will come out as a democratic revolutionary party or as a party
      of Order. We must draft our programme so as to be prepared even for the
      worst, and If the best combinations ensue, then that will only facilitate
      our work and give it a new stimulus.

Itremains for us to deal with the following argument by Comrade X on the
      question under discussion. “To this,” he writes concerning his
      thesis that the allotment of the cut-off lands will strengthen subsistence
      farming tenancy, “to this, exception might be taken on the ground
      that the allotment of the cut-off lands is important as a means of
      abolishing bondage forms of rentingtheselands, and not as a
      means of increasing and strengthening small subsistence farming. However,
      it is easy to see that there is a logical contradiction in this
      objection. The allotment of small plots of land is theallotment of
      land in insufficient quantityfor the conduct of progressive farming
      but sufficient to strengthen subsistence farming. Hence, subsistence
      farming is strengthened by the allotment of an insufficient quantity of
      land. But as to whether bondage forms of renting will be abolished by
      this—that still remains to be proved. We have shown that they will
      become stronger be cause of the increase in the number of petty
      proprietors— competitors in renting the landlord’s land.”

Wehave quoted this argument of Comrade X’s in full so as to make it
      easier for the reader to judgewherethe “logical
      contradiction” actually lies. As a general rule, the peasants are at
      present using the cut-off lands on terms of serf bondage. Upon the
      restitution of the cut-off lands, the peasants will use them as free
      owners. Does it really “still remain to be proved” that this
      restitutionwill abolishthe serf bondage resulting from these
      cut-off lands? It is a matter of special plots of land that have already
      given rise to a special form of bondage, but the author substitutes for
      this particular concept the general category of “an insufficient
      quantity of land”! This means skipping the question. It means assuming
      that at present the cut-off lands do not engender any special form of
      bondage: in which case their restitution would really besimplythe “allotment of an insufficient quantity of land,” and then we
      would really be unable to support this measure. But it is perfectly
      obvious to everyone that this is not the case.

Further.The author should not confuse serf bondage (the labour-rentsystemof farming) engendered by the cut-off lands with
      subsistence farming tenancy, with renting as a result of need in
      general. The latter form of renting exists in all European countries:
      under the capitalist system of farming, the competition of petty
      proprietors and small

      ten antseverywhere and alwaysinflates
      land prices and land rent to the proportions of “bondage.” We cannot
      do away withthis kindof

      bondage[6]until we get rid of capitalism. But can this be regarded as an objection
      to particular measures of struggle against particular and purely Russian
      forms of bondage?  Comrade X reasons as though he objected to a reduction
      of the working day on the grounds that the intensity of labour would be
      increased as a result of this reduction. The reduction of the working day
      is a partial reform, which eradicates only one form of bondage, viz.,
      enslavement by means of longer working hours. Other forms of bondage, as,
      for instance, “speeding up” the workers, are not eliminated bythisreform, and all forms of bondage in general cannot be
      eradicated by any reforms on the basis of capitalism.

Whenthe author says: “Allotment of the cut-off lands is a
      reactionary measure which reinforces bondage,” be is advancing a
      proposition which stands in such glaring contradiction to all the data on
      post-Reform peasant farming that he himself is unable to maintain this
      stand. He contradicts himself when he says somewhat earlier: “...It
      goes without saying that it is not the business of the Social-Democratic
      Party to implant capitalism. This will take place irrespective of the
      desire of any party, if peasant tenure extends....” But if the extension
      of peasant tenure in general leads to the development of capitalism, how
      much themoreinevitably will this result from the extension of
      peasant landownershipto the special plots of land which
      engender a specifically serf form of bondage. The restitution of the
      cut-off lands will raise the peasants’ standard of living, expand the home
      market, increase the demand for wage-workers in the towns, and likewise
      the demand for wage-labourers among the rich peasants and landlords, who
      lose a certain mainstay of the labour-rent system of farming. As to the“implantingof capitalism,” that is an altogether queer objection. The restitution of
      the cut-off lands would signify the implanting of capitalism only were
      that restitution necessary and advantageoussolelyto the
      bourgeoisie. But that is not the case. It is no less, if not more,
      necessary and advantageous to the rural poor, who are suffering from
      bondage and the labour-rent system. The rural proletarian is oppressedtogetherwith the rural bourgeois by serf bondage, which is based
      to a considerable degree on these very cut-off lands. That is why the
      rural proletarian cannot emancipate himself from this bondage withouttherebyemancipating the rural bourgeois too. Only Messrs. the
      Rudins and similar Socialist-Revolutionaries, who have forgotten their
      kinship with the Narodniks, can see in this an “implanting” of
      capitalism.

Stillless convincing are Comrade X’s arguments on the question of the
      feasibility of restituting the cut-off lands. The Volsk Uyezd data he
      cites speak against him: almost one-fifth of the estates (18 out of 99)
      have remained in the hands of the old proprietors, i.e., the cut-off lands
      could be transferred to the peasants directly and without any
      redemption. Another third of the estates have changed hands entirely,
      i.e., here it would be necessary to redeem the cut-off lands at the
      expense of the big landed nobility. And only in 16 cases out of 99 would
      it be necessary to redeem land from peasants and other owners who
      purchased it in portions. We simply cannot understand how the restitution
      of the cut-off lands can be “unfeasible” under such
      circumstances. Let us take the data referring to the selfsame Saratov
      Gubernia. We have before us the latest “Materials on the Question of
      the Needs of the Agricultural Industries in Saratov Gubernia”
      (Saratov, 1903). The size of all the cut-off lands held by for mer
      landlords’ peasants is given as 600,000 dessiatines, or 42.7
per cent.[7]If in 1896 the Zemstvo statisticians could determine the size of the
      cut-off lands on the basis of extractsfrom the title-deeds and other documents, why can their size not be
      determined even more accurately by the peasant committees in, say, 1906?
      And if the figures for Volsk Uyezd are taken as a standard, then it would
      appear that approximately 120,000 dessiatines could be returned to the
      peasants at once and without any redemption, that about 200,000
      dessiatines could be redeemed at once (at the expense of the noblemen’s
      land) from estates which changed hands in their entirety, and that only
      with regard to the remaining land would the process of redemption (at the
      expense of the landed nobility), exchange, etc., be somewhat more
      complicated. but in any case by no means “unfeasible.” The
      significance the restitution of their 600,000 dessiatines of land would
      have for the peasants is, for example, evident from the fact that the
      total amount of privately owned land rented in Saratov Gubernia at the end
      of the nineties was approximately 900,000 dessiatines. Naturally, we do
      not intend to assert that all cut-off lands are being rented at the
      present time; we merely want to show graphically the proportion of the
      amount of land to be returned as property, to the amount of land which is
      now being rentedvery oftenon terms entailing bondage and serf
      bondage. This comparison testifies most eloquently to the force of the
      blow which the restitution of the cut-off lands would deal at relations
      entailing serf bondage, to the stimulus it would give to the revolutionary
      energy of the “peasantry” and—what is most important
      from the viewpoint of the Social-Democrat—to the tremendous impetus
      it would give to the ideological and political cleavage between the
      rural. proletariat and the peasant bourgeoisie. For the peasant
      committees’ work of expropriation would immediately and inevitably bring
      about just such a decided and irrevocable cleavage, and by no means a
      union of the entire “peasantry” for
      “semi—socialist” “equalitarian” demands for
      all the land, as the modern epigones of Narodism fondly imagine. The more
      revolutionary the action of the “peasantry” against the
      landlords, the more rapid and deep will this cleavage be, which will then
      be made manifest not by the statistical computations of Marxist research
      but by the political action of the peasant bourgeoisie, by the struggle of
      parties and classes within the peasant committees.

Andnote: by advancing the demand for the restitution of the cut-off lands
      we are deliberately confining our task to the framework of the existing
      order; we areobligedto do this if we are to speak of a minimum
      programme and if we do not want to lapse into that kind of barefaced
      scheme-making, verging on charlatanry, in which “first place”
      is given to co-operatives, on the one hand, and to socialisation, on the
      other. We are replying to a question that has been raised but not by

      us,[8]to the question of the reforms of tomorrow, which are being discussed by
      the illegal press, “society,” by the Zemstvos, and, perhaps, even by
      the government. We would be anarchists or simply windbags if we held

      our selvesaloof from this pressing, but by no means socialist, problem which has
      been raised by the entire post-Reformhistory of Russia. We must provide acorrectsolution, from the
      Social-Democratic standpoint, to this problem which has not been raised by
      us; we must define our position with regard to the agrarian reforms which
      all liberal society has already demanded and without which no reasonable
      person can imagine the political emancipation of Russia. And we defineourstand on this liberal reform (liberal in the scientific, that
      is the Marxist, sense of the word), while remaining wholly true to our
      principle of support for the genuinely democratic movement, coupled with
      steady and persistent work to develop the class-consciousness of the
      proletariat. We lay down a practical line of conduct with regard to this
      kind of reform, which the government or the liberals must very soon
      adopt. We advance a slogan that impels towards a revolutionary issue a
      reform which has actually been prompted by life itself and not concocted
      from the fantasy of a hazy, humanitarianAllerwelts[Acceptable to
	all.—Ed.]

      socialism.

Itis in this latter respect that the draft programme of Comrade X is in
      error. No answer whatever is given to the question of the attitude to be
      taken towards the forthcoming liberal reforms in agrarian
      relationships. Instead, we are offered (in points 5 and 7) an inferior and
      contradictory formulation of the demand for the nationalisation of the
      land. Contradictory, because the abolition of rent is at one time proposed
      by means of a tax, at another by means of transferring the land to
      society; inferior, because rents cannot be abolished by taxes, and because
      the land should (generally speaking) preferably be transferred to a
      democratic state, and not tosmallpublic organisations (like the
      present or future Zemstvos). The reasons for non-inclusion in our
      programme of the demand for the nationalisation of the land have already
      been given more than once, and we shall not repeat them here.

Point8 does not at all bear upon the practical section of the programme,
      while Point 6 has been formulated by Comrade X in such a way as to have
      nothing “agrarian” left in it. Why he deletes the point on the
      courts and reduction of rents remains a mystery.

Theauthor formulates Point 1 less clearly than is done in our draft,
      while his addition: “in the interests of defending the petty
      proprietor (and not of developing petty proprietorship),” is once again
      non-“agrarian,” inaccurate (we are not out to defend petty proprietors who
      employ wage-labour) and superfluous, for, inasmuch as we defend thepersonand not the property of the petty bourgeois, we do this
      through our demand for strictly defined social, financial, and other
      reforms.

[1]And if weare ableto curb-them, then the sale of the land will
      not turn into plundering and gifts to the capitalists.
    —Lenin

[2]Pskov, Novgorod, Tver, Moscow, Vladimir, Smolensk, Kaluga, Yaroslavl, and
      Kostroma gubernias.
    —Lenin

[3]Orel, Tula, Ryazan, Kursk, Voronezh, Tambov, Nizhni-Novgorod, Simbirsk,
      Kazan, Penza, Saratov, Chernigov, Kharkov, and Poltava gubernias (37 per
      cent of the land cut off).
    —Lenin

[4]Kherson, Ekaterinoslav, Taurida, Don (approximate figure), and Samara
      gubernias.
    —Lenin

[5]Comparing these figures on the cut-off lands in three areas with the
      figures on the proportion of corvée peasants to the total number of
      peasants (according to the data of the Drafting Commissions: see Vol. 32,
      p. 686 of theEncyclopaedic Dictionary, the article “The
      Peasants”), we get the following relationship. Non-black-earth area
      (9gubernias): cut-off lands—6 .5 per cent; corvée
      peasants—43.9 per cent (average for 9 gubernias). Central
      black-earth area (14 gubernias): cut-off lands—21 .9 per cent;
      corvée peasants—76 per cent. Steppe area (5 gubernias):
      cut-off lands—28.3 per cent; corvée peas ants—95.3 per
      cent. Hence the relationship is just the opposite to what Comrade X wants
      to make out.
    —Lenin

[6]This bondage may be limited, kept in check, by empowering the courts to
      reduce rents—a demand we advance in our programme.
    —Lenin

[7]These latest Zemstvo statistics, we might note, fully bear out the
      contention of the aforementioned statistician that the data he submitted
      on the cut-off lands are anunderestimation.According tothosedata the cut-off lands in Saratov Gubernia amounted only to
      512,000 dessiatines (=38 per cent). As a matter of fact, even 600,000
      dessiatines isbelow the actual size of the cut-off lands, for,
      in the first place, it doesnotincludeallthe village
      communes of the former land lords’ peasants, and, secondly, it coversonly cultivable lands.
    —Lenin

[8]To what extent the question of agrarian reforms on the basis of the
      existing order has been raised “not by us” is evident, for
      example, from the following quotation which we have taken from an article
      by Mr. V. V., one of themost prominenttheoreticians of
      Narodism, which dates back to the best period of his activity
      (Otechestvenniye

	Zapiski,[10]1882, Nos. 8 and 9). “The order which we are analysing,”
      Mr. V. V. wrote at the time about our system of agriculture, “has
      been inherited by us from the serf-owning system... Serfdom has collapsed,
      but so far only in its juridical aspect and a few others; the system of
      agriculture, however, has remained the same as it was prior to the
      Reform.... The peasants were unable to continue running their farms solely
      on their own curtailed allotments; they absolutely had to use the lands
      that had been taken from them.... In order to secure the proper running of
      the small farms, it is necessary to guarantee the peasant the use of at
      least those lands that ... in one way or another were at his disposal at
      the time of serfdom. This is the minimum desideratum that can be advanced
      on behalf of small scale farming.”  This is how the question was put by
      those who believed in Narodism and openly preached it, instead of
      unseemingly playing at hide-and-seek as the Socialist-Revolutionary
      gentlemen do. And Social Democracy has appraised this Narodnik
      presentation in its essence, as it always appraises bourgeois and
      petty-bourgeois demands. It took over in full the positive and progressive
      side of the demands (the struggle against all remnants of serfdom),
      rejecting petty-bourgeois illusions and pointing out that the eradication
      of the remnants of the serf-owning system will clear the road for, and
      speed up, capitalist development and not any other kind. It is precisely
      in the interests of social development and of untying the proletarian’s
      hands, and not “for the sake of small-scale farming” that we
      present our demand for the restitution of the cut-off lands, while by no
      means pledging ourselves to assist the “small”peasant
      bourgeoisieeither against serfdom or even against the big
      bourgeoisie.
    —Lenin

[9]X—pseudonym of the Menshevik P. P. Maslov.

[10]Otechestuennige Zapiski (Fatherland Noles)—amagazine which
      began publication in 1820, and after 1839 appeared as a regular
      monthly. Contributors to the magazine included Belinsky, Nekrasov,
      Saltykov-Shchedrin, Yeliseyev, and others. The revolutionary-democratic
      intelligentsia were grouped round0techestvenniye Zapiski, which
      was constantly persecuted by the censorship until it was closed down by
      the tsarist government in 1884.